No possible, probable shadow of doubt

Kehoe, Alice Β.

doi:10.1017/s0003598x00079382

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Where once we had widespread acceptance that all representations (or at least those worth depicting and discussing) were female, and all female images were fertility goddesses (see discussion in Kehoe (1991)); we now find these same assemblages being discussed as possible reflections of fluid gender roles, ritual participants and specialists, the symbolic power associated with female and male sexuality, and the manipulation of gender images in the contexts of larger socio-political productive and reproductive agendas. While the diversity of approaches, perspectives, and opinions can be confounding, it is nonetheless refreshing after the homogenizing influence of the ''Goddess" (Bailey, 2005;Gopher and Orelle, 1996;Chesson, 2005, 2007;Lesure, 2002Lesure, , 2007Meskell, 1995Meskell, , 2007Tringham and Conkey, 1998).…”

Section: Figurative Artmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…into these two categories (male/female) and begin looking for differences. Less assumption-laden methods examine the complete set of data to identify variation or clustering that may pattern in ways that define more than two groups or have attributes that cross-cut sex approximations (Kehoe, 1991;Croucher, 2008;Gopher and Orelle, 1996;Peterson, 2002;Robb, 1998). Second, the conflation can limit the archaeological imagination in the realm of interpretation.…”

Section: Theoretical Perspectives and Operating Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Domesticating gender: Neolithic patterns from the southern Levant

Peterson

2010

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Figurative Artmentioning

confidence: 77%

Section: Theoretical Perspectives and Operating Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Domesticating gender: Neolithic patterns from the southern Levant

Peterson

2010

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In some cases, it may just as easily be argued that such abstract figures are male as that they are female. Is the description of the Dolni Vestonice artifact as a “rod with breasts” the most parsimonious explanation of its form or is it possible, or even more likely, that it represents male genitalia, as suggested by Alice Kehoe ()?…”

Section: Upper Paleolithic Figurines As Sexual Objectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Science, the Media, and Interpretations of Upper Paleolithic Figurines

Nowell

Chang

2014

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using the recent discovery of the Hohle Fels figurine as a catalyst, in this article we briefly review the history of scholarship regarding Upper Paleolithic figurines that are often referred to as "Venus" figurines.We integrate this review with a critical examination of the assumptions underlying the "Venus hypothesis"-the perspective that these artifacts are best understood as sexual objects-based on the available data from both inside and outside of the field of Paleolithic archaeology. We suggest that interpreting the figurines in a purely sexual context obstructs their objective, scientific study and has unintended social consequences. Following from this, we consider why the Venus hypothesis persists in the popular media and scholarly research despite decades of reflexive critiques. Finally, building on these critiques, we argue for the importance of contextualization in the study of Upper Paleolithic figurines and discuss new approaches to their study. [Upper Paleolithic, figurines, pop culture, media, science] RÉSUMÉ Utilisant la dècouverte rècente de la figurine de Hohle Fels comme catalyste, le prèsent article passe en revue brièvement l'histoire de la recherche concernant les figurines du Paléolithique supérieur auxquelles on référe le plus fréquemment par le terme de figurine "Vénus". La revue comporte un examen critique des présuppositions sous-jacentesà "l'hypothèse de Vénus", notamment qu'il s'agit de faç on plausible d'objets sexuels, s'appuyant sur les données disponibles, dans le cadre médiatique populaire en deçà ainsi qu'à l'intérieur du domaine de la recherche sur le Paléolithique. Nous suggérons que toutes interprétations dans un contexte exclusivement sexuel masque une démarche scientifique objective comportant des répercussions sociales imprévues. Poursuivant ce raisonnement, nous abordons les causes d'une telle persistence de l'hypothèse Vénus dans le monde médiatique ainsi que dans la recherché erudite, malgré des décennies de réflection critique. Finalement, nous fondant sur ces critiques, nous soutenons l'importance de replacer l'étude des figurines du Paléolithique supérieur dans leur cadre contextuel et discutons de nouvelles démarches pour leurétude. [Paléolithque supérieur, statuettes féminines, culture populaire, médias, science] RESUMEN Usando el reciente descubrimiento de la estatuilla Hohle Fels como un catalizador, en este artículo brevemente revisamos la historia del cuerpo de conocimientos sobre las estatuillas del Paleolítico Superior que a menudo se refieren como las figuras de "Venus". Integramos esta revisión con una examinación crítica de las asunciones subyacentes de la "hipótesis de Venus"-la perspectiva que estos artefactos se entienden mejor como objetos sexuales-basados en la información disponible tanto de dentro como fuera del campo de la arqueología paleolítica. Sugerimos que interpretando las estatuillas en un contexto puramente sexual obstruye su estudio objetivo, científico y tiene consecuencias sociales imprevistas. Siguiendo esto, consideramos por qué ...

show abstract

“…In looking at the archaeology of gender the first requirement is to identify biological sex, before analysing the social construct of gender (Epstein 1988: 5-7;Gilchrist 1991). Coles 1990;Kehoe 1991). DNA on a cemetery population) to look at genetic relationships of offspring and parents, but this evidence alone cannot provide an understanding of male/female relationships.…”

Section: Cause and Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%